Correcting the Record on the Trans ‐​Pacific Partnership

Clark PackardCiting a supposed groundswell of support for rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), former U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer recentlyargued that it would be a mistake for the United States to reenter the trade pact. The promising agreement with 11 other Pacific Rim countries was negotiated by the Obama Administration as the economic centerpiece of its “pivot to Asia” but then was unfortunatelyjettisoned by the Trump Administration as one of its first official acts in January 2017. The remaining TPP members moved forward with the agreement and renamed it the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Former Ambassador Lighthizer argues that the agreement fails on both economic and geopolitical grounds. His claims do not withstand scrutiny.First, on the economics: Ambassador Lighthizer recites a well-worn litany of zero-sum mercantilist complaints about the agreement: CPTPP/TPP membership would do nothing to boost the U.S. economy and would not do much to boost exports. That ’s simply not true. In 2016, Cato’sanalysis of the agreement found that, on net, TPP would have liberalized trade in the United States, thus benefiting American consumers —both firms and families—relying on imported products and services. Trade liberalization may be worrisome to mercantilists like Lighthizer, but its virtues have proven themselves repeatedly over time.Rigorous economic analyses have confirmed these conclusions in th...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs